
Alternate, Link-Bait Headline: TOTALLY NAKED HELEN HUNT BANGS POLIO VICTIM FOR MONEY!
I saw The Sessions at a press screening about a month before it was set to hit theaters, going in mostly cold, without having seen the trailer or read almost anything about it. All I’d heard was:
1. Helen Hunt goes full frontal in it
2. It stars John Hawkes, aka Teardrop from Winter’s Bone
Suffice it to say, that was all it took for me to give a limited-release, arthouse flick from a director I’d never heard of a shot. As the movie began, I learned, from the opening sequence, that Hawkes, looking like he’s been subsisting on nothing but smuggled Winter’s Bone meth for the last six months, narrates the film as Mark O’Brien, a 37-year-old with a twisted spine (ACTING!) whose body has been paralyzed from the neck down by childhood polio. He lives in an iron lung most of the day, and, before they took it away, traveled from place to place on a motorized gurney that he powered by blowing into a tube. He could stay outside just long enough to attend classes at UC Berkeley, studying poetry.
I almost left right then. The only way to make a life-affirming story of a saintly disabled man’s perseverance against all odds more obnoxious and awards-baity is to throw in poetry. And for some reason, no one ever seems to recognize that abled-bodied actors portraying the nobly disabled can be demeaning in the same way that a white guy with feathers in his hair playing a noble savage would be. People recognize that blackface is bad, because blackface is easy to recognize, but even supposedly-erudite cultural critics are still pretty inept when it comes to recognizing the impulse behind blackface, and why that’s bad, which is much more important.
Counter to my initial impulse, I did not leave, and I was rewarded for it, and not just because I got to see Helen Hunt’s boobs and vagina. The Sessions departs from the usual a-spastic’s-life-is-beautiful narrative in a variety of ways, all of them pleasing. For one thing, we don’t start at the traditional beginning of this story, where our hero fights his way into college and sets the world on fire with his incendiary words. This is more a Royal Tenenbaums-style premise, in which we meet our protagonist after he’s already been the flavor-of-the-month fodder for human interest stories, yesterday’s news, but still hanging around. They’ve even taken away his motorized gurney (he couldn’t see where he was going) and stuck him with a surly assistant named Joan, who Mark says is “one crazy bitch.”
We’re introduced to Mark’s refreshingly cruel sense of humor through Joan, who he can’t stand – despite the fact that she’s clearly a good person who bathes him and cares for him – for the simple crime of being kinda bitchy and obnoxious. He fires her and hires hot college babe Amanda (Annika Marks) – remember, this is seventies Berkeley – who he instantly falls in love with. He eventually pours his heart out to her and she bolts.
“Welcome to the human race, every day somebody breaks somebody’s heart,” Mark’s friend the priest tells him.
So begins Mark’s quest to get some stank on his hang down, which still works, despite his other disabilities. He hears about sex therapists, who will not only bone him, but guide him through the process. Again, Berkeley, the seventies.
Mark first runs the plan by his closest confidant, his priest, played by William H. Macy, basically asking a clergyman for permission to fornicate.
“My penis speaks to me, Father Brendan,” he says.
“In my heart, I believe God will give you a free pass on this one,” Macy tells him.
The sequence speaks to the best thing about The Sessions: no contrived antagonist. Almost every crappy movie about a disabled guy you’ve ever seen has some character that treats the protagonist like shit so we’ll feel sorry for him. It goes further than noble-cripple movies, too, pretty much every Tyler Perry or Nicholas Sparks movie has at least five characters who are cartoons of terrible people, just to make it expressly clear who we’re supposed to root for. Protagonist in love with a married woman? Obviously her husband beats her. Thank God, wouldn’t want the audience to feel conflicted! You see it even in based-on-a-true-story movies, which is downright cruel when you think about it. “Oh yeah, pretty much everything’s true except for the part where we turned this one guy, who’s a real person that exists in the world, into a total bastard. We thought it would add ‘drama.’”
The Sessions is refreshing because it’s just a nice movie about a nice guy with nice friends, that doesn’t have to turn anyone into a shithead to make them interesting. Truth is, mother nature is already a fine antagonist. Mark’s central goal is to get laid, and his relationship with Father Brendan works on so many levels – Brendan trying to encourage his friend without betraying his church, all while trying to vicariously experience the thrill of sex through his disabled buddy, his vow-of-celibacy loophole. Mark’s gurney doesn’t fit in a confession booth either, so they have these conversations in the middle of the church, without much privacy – another nice touch. Privacy is a perk of affluence and the modern age and it’s rarely afforded the disabled.
Likewise Helen Hunt’s character doesn’t get the predictable pop-psychology treatment, where we pick and prod at the scabs of her youth to understand why she bangs polio victims for money, as if life is ever that reductive. She’s a nice, fairly normal-seeming lady, with kids and a husband and a mortgage, who does what she does because… writer/director Ben Lewin is wise enough to leave room for a little ambiguity there. Helen Hunt has a unique combination of wizened worldliness, motherliness, and soft sex appeal that works perfectly in this role.
“I had an incredible boner,” Mark writes of their first encounter.
The film was originally title The Surrogate before it became The Sessions, a reference to the six sexual sessions Mark is limited to with Helen Hunt’s character, to keep the clients from getting attached. I wish the narrative had hewed a little closer to the new title, because the only place where it falls into genre tropes is in the very end, once the sessions are over. But “the sessions” is precisely what it’s about, a beautiful vignette of time and place and people.
Ending aside, The Sessions proves you can still entertain with a movie about nice, pleasant people. Try not to read too much into the fact that it was a period piece.
GRADE: B+
The Sessions is already playing in New York in LA, and opens today in a handful of new markets, including San Francisco (hence me being embargoed until today).
Vince Mancini is a San Francisco-based writer and comedian. Follow me on Twitter. Fan FilmDrunk on Facebook.



is Helen a shaven blonde with big naturals too Vince?
She’s more of a trimmed blonde with big naturals, which I prefer.
Damn you Helen Hunt and your magical cunt.
I’m going to be sing-saying this all weekend.
Does he pay her or it, forward?
Helen Hunt and the Magical Cunt sound’s like a long lost Dr Seuss Book.
Oh the Places You’ll Go! Including Helen Hunt’s Cooch!
So tell us, Vince: how was the full frontal?
My summoning worked!
I would also like to know this.
I got my red wings from a period piece.
#yourmombeforemenopause
Another trope I hate is the guy who’s too nice to actually fuck the prostitute. I think I would be more interested (read: interested) in this movie if he banged a random series of prostitutes, any of whom I would rather see naked than HeHu.
Also: Hawkes is so cockrockingly awesome in Martha Marcy May Marlene it makes Teardrop look like a Paul Walker screen test. That movie will curbstomp you, take your lunch money and go knuckle deep into your sister.
Are you happy with that second paragraph?
When you’re paralyzed from the neck down, it’s probably a much smarter move to trust a sex therapist over a prostitute. 5 Second Films could do the prostitute version of this.
@Satan–ecstatic. You?
@Antichrist–smarter, yes. And this is almost certainly a better story than that would be. Still, a lot of guys make dumb decisions, and if I was that intent on getting sexed my judgment would be atrocious. Also prostitutes are very easy to locate.
I like the alternate title
Dr. Strangelove, or Totally Naked Helen Hunt Bangs Polio Victim for Money
Best review I have read on this site. Good stuff.
This review made me feel good. That is all.
If you like seeing disabled people sexing it up, then you’re going to have to check out ” It is Fine! Everything is Fine! ” an incredibly bizarre film produced by the oddity that is Crispin Glover. Real disabled guy. Real penetrative sex. If you go to one of these screenings you even get to tell Crispin what you think of it to his face. He has the softest hands. *swoon*
Vince, what did you mean about the impulse behind blackface? I think your comparison to the portrayal of the disabled in movies is a really good and interesting point, but I sort of feel like the main reason blackface is offensive is because it’s almost always done to mock black people.
The mocking is a big part of it, sure, but I think mocking in the absence of other kinds of oppression isn’t that big a deal. Divorced of historical context, blackface is just trying to look like someone else, which is fairly innocent. It’s a natural impulse, little kids do it. There’s a reason black comics can do white face make up to mock white people and everyone’s fine with it – it’s because just dressing up like another race to mock them isn’t that offensive in and of itself. It’s more historical oppression and disenfranchisement that makes it offensive.
What I mean by the impulse behind blackface is the part where you’re essentially co-opting the voice of the voiceless and purporting to speak for them. The mocking aspect adds insult to injury, but the main problem is that you’re taking a group that’s denied a voice and not letting them tell their own story. Which, you might argue, is an even greater crime when you’re not mocking, because you’re creating the illusion that the voiceless have been heard (when really you’ve spoken for them), possibly making it harder for those voiceless to be heard when they DO try to tell their own story. People get hung up on the mocking part, but that ain’t really it.
I think those two paragraphs are sort of incompatible if you generalize beyond black/white race stuff. I agree with what you said in the first one pretty much 100%, but I think the second sort of implies that members of a given group are the only ones who should “tell their story,” so to speak. That seems awfully limiting, especially when you’re working off of the assumption that said group is voiceless in the first place. Also, on some level, it seems contrary to the general point of making a movie with actors.
Ultimately I think the problem in any given case is really just the quality of the portrayal. I don’t think DDL really contributed to the disenfranchisement of the disabled in My Left Foot, and RDJ’s blackface in Tropic Thunder was funny. Anyway the distinction I’m making is probably pretty pedantic.
Well, nowadays I don’t think anyone’s truly “voiceless,” so it’s a finer line. You’re right, it is about the quality of the portrayal. But there’s a tendency for people to act like heroes for telling another group’s story, whereas I think telling another group’s story is always a little problematic. I do think you should stick to what you know and let people tell their own story as much as possible.
[www.forharriet.com]
This is somewhat related. Here again, key phrase “you are contributing to the ongoing invisibility of women…”
Point being, it doesn’t matter how nice you’re being in the portrayal if you’re taking away potential opportunities from people who feel excluded. Not to say an able-bodied person should never play a disabled person, but it’s something to think about on a level deeper than “this might win me an award.”
A response the next night? DURING THE 49ERS GAME?? It’s like, Vince, why are you so obsessed with me?
I’m with you, and I think that’s part of the reason it’s something that’s extra pronounced with the black/white thing — it’s generally really easy to just cast a black actor. That’s definitely not true with with a lot of other groups (especially the disabled) which I think is what made me initially curious about your characterization of the underlying impulse.
I also didn’t mean to imply anything about the niceness or tone of the portrayal, but rather its quality. Authenticity in terms of race or group membership can be part of the quality of a portrayal, but only to a certain extent, especially with acting.
I’d also challenge the premise of the linked article, since perfect authenticity is obviously something that is, for the most part, impossible, and probably in many cases not even all that desirable. Her problems with Saldana’s casting stem from the fact that she doesn’t physically resemble the original person, not anything having to do with her background or ability to portray that role on screen. They’re the same problems she’d have if the actress were white, just attenuated. Presumably, those problems wouldn’t exist if the makeup people could credibly darken Saldana’s skin and alter her facial features. Actually, broadening her nose is probably pretty easy, and now I am wondering if they will do that. But, essentially all that woman is saying is “I wanted a phenotypically authentic African woman, and you gave me Zoe Saldana, who is the epitome of idealized mixed-race beauty.” Obviously that’s better than casting Nicole Kidman, but it still boils down to “close, but not close enough,” which is always an individual judgment call.
Lastly, I don’t know how relevant this is, but it’s interesting to parse out just who is telling a given story. I don’t know the details of the project the linked article referenced but dollars to donuts it’s being directed by a white guy.
Anyway sorry this is so long. I NEVER DOUBTED THE PANDA, AND 2 OUT OF 3 AIN’T BAD, JUST ASKED MEATLOAF.